Liberty cannot be an "open season" type of right, exercised without limits and curtailed only when there are matters of national security
The Paris Olympics opening ceremony faced controversy over an alleged parody of the Last Supper. Critics claimed the segment mocked Leonardo da Vinci's iconic painting by depicting athletes and performers in a similar arrangement, seemingly trivializing a significant religious scene.
The organizers defended the performance, stating it was a celebration of unity and diversity, drawing inspiration from famous art to emphasize harmony among nations. The depiction sparked debate about the boundaries of artistic expression and respect for religious symbols, with reactions varying widely across different cultural and religious communities.
The Last Supper painting is pivotal in the Catholic faith, depicting Jesus’ final meal with his disciples. It represents the institution of the Eucharist, a central sacrament in Catholicism, symbolizing Jesus' sacrifice and fostering communal worship and remembrance of Christ's teachings and sacrifice.
Firstly, many have argued that the painting of the Last Supper is just a mere painting of the event that took place a thousand years before Da Vinci thought of painting it. I find this utterly fallacious. Most Gods and worshipful figures in major religions around the world lived or existed on earth at a time when photographing themselves was not a priority and service to the people was prioritized.
Therefore, for their followers and devotees, a 600-year-old depiction of the events explained in detail in religious scripture holds importance and is considered as a symbol of the faith. Otherwise, the beautiful frescos in churches and carvings and sculptures in temples would be meaningless.
Secondly, another argument in favour of the parody is the sacrosanct right to liberty in France. The very foundations of that nation was laid on the promise of liberty, equality and fraternity.
On the other hand, France is known as Christendom’s oldest daughter after it became the state religion following the conversion of King Clovis I. Such is the relation between France and the Church. Hence, the using of one’s liberty to mock one’s own culture and the religious beliefs of a billion people is deeply flawed.
How much can one stretch their liberty to mock the faith of his own countrymen and many across the world? If such a depiction were to happen in India, the choreographer may have been incarcerated. Liberty cannot be an "open season" type of right, exercised without limits and curtailed only when there are matters of national security.
Article 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, very clearly states “Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others”. The opening act at the Olympics has harmed countless children watching it being televised and Catholics who understood it to be a mockery of a painting so important to them.
Thirdly, some argue that the parody was not a mockery of the Last Supper, but of the Feast of Greek Gods painted by Biljert. Even if that holds true, exposing children who were performing and those watching on television is nothing but an utter travesty and borders on paedophilia. The Olympics is an event where all the countries of the world are participating, it’s not France’s own creation, and therefore when an act is portrayed in the opening ceremony it must fit within the morals and laws of all participating countries.
It is probably okay to flash parts of your body to the public and to children in France, but it is a crime in India and many other countries, and such propaganda can influence people in places where such acts are prohibited. Looking into the truth of whether the parody was based on the Feast of the Greek Gods, the Gods in that painting were celebrating at the banquet of a marriage party, and at the centre of that painting is Apollo. In this parody, at the centre was a performer sporting a headset and a DJ console and looked like anything but Apollo, and the performers were not celebrating a banquet but engaging in some very suggestive movement.
A country that colonised most of the world (still has some) and destroyed local cultures and traditions for being too vulgar, is indulging in complete vulgarity today, which in my opinion is blatant double standards. Answering my question, whether this act is blasphemous or not is determined by canon laws and conventions on the issue.
Canon 1368 reads, “A person is to be punished with a just penalty who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.” A plain reading of this shows the crime is not only against the church but against the morality of the public.
Philosopher Dave Nash writes that blasphemy has always contained the mockery of religious or spiritual beings and symbols. Considering the three arguments in defence of the parody, and that I’ve shown how they are flawed and understanding the portrayal in light of Catholic philosophy, public morals and the limits of liberty, the act at the opening ceremony of the Olympics is utter blasphemy, distasteful and in contempt of the Catholic faith.
